These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Proposal] Remove AFK cloaking

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Arduemont
Rotten Legion
#81 - 2012-10-20 16:24:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Arduemont
Anyone can be afk 95% of the time and still be an effective killer. Ships that use cloaks already are specifically weaker because of the use of covert cloaks, and the other cloaks slow target speed and ship movement etc. They are already paying for the privilege of being able to cloak.

If you don't agree with people being able to be afk and then kill people, perhaps you should also propose some method of kicking people out of stations if they're afk in a station for more than 30 minutes?

Also, there are already counters for afk cloaking. Something you failed to pass comment on.

As for it being boring dealing with afk cloakies, well so what?

"In the age of information, ignorance is a choice." www.stateofwar.co.nf
Azrael Dinn
Imperial Mechanics
#82 - 2012-10-21 10:09:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Azrael Dinn
Arduemont wrote:

...
Azrael Dinn wrote:
So anyhow... fuelbays ^^. They will not ruin anything and CCP needs to think about the balance NOT US. You can still afk-cloak, but not indefinetly and thus the problem is solved for everyone.


Are you kidding? You want anyone who cloaks to pay for fuel and be fine with that. Also, lets not forget the fact that if they run out of fuel for any reason the cloak is completely useless. Let me say it again, there is no good reason to change cloaking anyway.


No i'm not kidding and as we both have the oposite points of views I could say the same to you that are you kidding by saying that they cloacks are fine.

The threat is about removing or fixing AFK cloaking so give a solution or be quiet.

All you cloak lovers always say is that it's working it's working. Of course it's working when you can be afk cloacked 23,5/7 and rat on 3 other accounts at the same time in empire or in your own precious bear system.

And if your so dence that you can't see this from other points of views then you better stop posting.

So more solutions and less crying that is working.

After centuries of debating and justifying... Break Cloaks tm
Arduemont
Rotten Legion
#83 - 2012-10-21 15:38:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Arduemont
There was no content in that post ^^. You said I was crying (when Im the one happy with how it is), and that I was dense, and that AFK cloaking IS a threat (without putting forward any argument for why), and then told me not to bother posting if I cant empathise with your side of the argument when you clearly are just as bad as me.

Lets put this straight with facts, rather than bogus opinion.

1- Afk cloakers are afk, therefore not doing anything.
2- If they're not afk, you can kill them.
3- They can't stop you doing anything except through fear.
4- If your afraid to do something you can change system to do it without fear.
5- If they follow you, they're not afk. Therefore see point 2.
6- Cloaks reduce the combat effectiveness of a ship, by using up slots or from adverse effects.

If your still worried about the fact they can be safe whilst afk, well then you should propose to get rid of POS shields and the ability to dock. Make a counter argument or don't bother responding.

"In the age of information, ignorance is a choice." www.stateofwar.co.nf
Nylith Empyreal
Sutar Rein
#84 - 2012-10-22 03:06:08 UTC
It's the topic that never ends, it goes on and on my friends, some people, started whining not knowing what it was, and they'll continue whining forever just because....

Who's the more foolish the fool or the fool who replies to him?
Azrael Dinn
Imperial Mechanics
#85 - 2012-10-22 06:09:25 UTC
Arduemont wrote:
There was no content in that post ^^. You said I was crying (when Im the one happy with how it is), and that I was dense, and that AFK cloaking IS a threat (without putting forward any argument for why), and then told me not to bother posting if I cant empathise with your side of the argument when you clearly are just as bad as me.

Lets put this straight with facts, rather than bogus opinion.

1- Afk cloakers are afk, therefore not doing anything.
2- If they're not afk, you can kill them.
3- They can't stop you doing anything except through fear.
4- If your afraid to do something you can change system to do it without fear.
5- If they follow you, they're not afk. Therefore see point 2.
6- Cloaks reduce the combat effectiveness of a ship, by using up slots or from adverse effects.

If your still worried about the fact they can be safe whilst afk, well then you should propose to get rid of POS shields and the ability to dock. Make a counter argument or don't bother responding.


1. Not true. There is the psychological warfare side of things in this one also.
2. Not true. Even how much you want to find them and do what you can you might not still get them.
3. True but industrialists are usualy easy to kill so they can also use force
4. True but it will not resolve the issue of the AFK cloaker being somewhere AFK
5. See point 2
6. And? it is your choice will or will you not fit your ship with cloaks. If you do not like the disadvantaged over the advantages then do not fir a cloak.

I'll drop the dence things so this wont go into a fight over whos more dencer but I ment with they crying part that most posts are "crycrycry no solution crycrycry" and I did not mean you in specific. Though it would be nice that you would give also an solution to this and so IF you would have to make an solution to this what would it be? How would you remove AFK cloaking.

My solution is still that claoks should use fuel (heavy water, it's cheap and easy to get, mayby add something that allowes you to extract heavy water from ice so you don't need to go to a station to get it) and special cloak ships could have the fuel bays.
1. You could still AFK cloak for some time if needed
2. Game would be more tactical as you need to think more what you do with your cloaked ships
3. You can still do psychological warfare if you want.
4. Cloaks would realy not change there would be just something new in them, something new that you need to keep in your mind and now just fly mindlessly all over the place.


Oh and CCP is removing POS shields or they are planing to do so, so no need to propose that. ;)

After centuries of debating and justifying... Break Cloaks tm
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#86 - 2012-10-22 09:27:23 UTC  |  Edited by: TheGunslinger42
Azrael Dinn wrote:
Arduemont wrote:
There was no content in that post ^^. You said I was crying (when Im the one happy with how it is), and that I was dense, and that AFK cloaking IS a threat (without putting forward any argument for why), and then told me not to bother posting if I cant empathise with your side of the argument when you clearly are just as bad as me.

Lets put this straight with facts, rather than bogus opinion.

1- Afk cloakers are afk, therefore not doing anything.
2- If they're not afk, you can kill them.
3- They can't stop you doing anything except through fear.
4- If your afraid to do something you can change system to do it without fear.
5- If they follow you, they're not afk. Therefore see point 2.
6- Cloaks reduce the combat effectiveness of a ship, by using up slots or from adverse effects.

If your still worried about the fact they can be safe whilst afk, well then you should propose to get rid of POS shields and the ability to dock. Make a counter argument or don't bother responding.


1. Not true. There is the psychological warfare side of things in this one also.
2. Not true. Even how much you want to find them and do what you can you might not still get them.
3. True but industrialists are usualy easy to kill so they can also use force
4. True but it will not resolve the issue of the AFK cloaker being somewhere AFK
5. See point 2
6. And? it is your choice will or will you not fit your ship with cloaks. If you do not like the disadvantaged over the advantages then do not fir a cloak.

I'll drop the dence things so this wont go into a fight over whos more dencer but I ment with they crying part that most posts are "crycrycry no solution crycrycry" and I did not mean you in specific. Though it would be nice that you would give also an solution to this and so IF you would have to make an solution to this what would it be? How would you remove AFK cloaking.


1. This is EVE, metagaming is a big part of it. Crying to get rid of a kind of metagaming is dumb.
2. If they're not AFK then they are doing something. From just traveling to hunting, they're doing something. That gives you opportunities to catch and kill them. It may be difficult, and you may fail. That doesn't make his point not true, though.
3. If industrialists make themselves easy targets by minmaxing and going it solo, thats their own problem.
4. It doesn't "resolve the issue"? What god damn issue? A player is AFK alone in a system (as you moved next door to do things)... how is that an issue? Why does CCP need to do something about that? Doesn't resolve the issue of the player being afk... what a mindboggingly stupid statement.
5. See point 2.
6. Another mindboggingly stupid statement. Cloaking is a necessary mechanic in numerous situations - it's been balanced so it can be used in these situations without being overpowered - saying people should outright not use it at all is just unrealistic and stupid.

PS if you insist on insulting people, at least learn to spell "dense" correctly.

Azrael Dinn wrote:
My solution is still that claoks should use fuel (heavy water, it's cheap and easy to get, mayby add something that allowes you to extract heavy water from ice so you don't need to go to a station to get it) and special cloak ships could have the fuel bays.
1. You could still AFK cloak for some time if needed
2. Game would be more tactical as you need to think more what you do with your cloaked ships
3. You can still do psychological warfare if you want.
4. Cloaks would realy not change there would be just something new in them, something new that you need to keep in your mind and now just fly mindlessly all over the place.


Oh and CCP is removing POS shields or they are planing to do so, so no need to propose that. ;)


There is no problem that requires a solution. Additionally, your proposed solution does nothing but interfere with active players and activities. It hinders long term reconnaissance missions, and utterly destroys wormhole space. Arguably it'd contribute to the stagnation of nullsec, as intel gathering activities are a big deal and imposing idiotic limitations on them in order to curb an entirely different thing is just terrible. Not to mention the fact that the thing it is trying to "fix" isn't something that needs fixing in the first place. Someone being afk is not some unbalanced, game-breaking issue that CCP needs to look into, I can't comprehend how stupid one must be in order to consider it as such.
Prince Kobol
#87 - 2012-10-22 09:53:11 UTC
I understand the sentiment that somebody who is afk should not be able to have a direct effect / influence within game.

Yes somebody who was afk has never killed anybody, the issue is that you never know if that person is afk or not.

I do not agree cloaks need fuel or a timer as this has for too much potential to hurt other area's of the game.

I would much prefer to introduce a new class of ship, say a destroyer and new types of probes to help scan down cloaked ships.

The way it would work would be that the scan time would be a lot longer then normal probes and only the new ship type can equip the probes.

If the person is not afk and is moving around there is no problem as it would be impossible to scan them due to the scan time.

However if the person goes afk they run the risk of being detected.

I do not see anything wrong with this.
Azrael Dinn
Imperial Mechanics
#88 - 2012-10-22 10:08:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Azrael Dinn
TheGunslinger42 wrote:

........


Like I said that if you do not have any solutions for this then do not post. You realy need to be realy dense to not understand that. ^^

I'm saying it's broken and I want to hear solutions for it not crying that it's not broken. If the fuel idea is bad then present a better one.

After centuries of debating and justifying... Break Cloaks tm
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#89 - 2012-10-22 13:41:38 UTC
Prince Kobol wrote:
I understand the sentiment that somebody who is afk should not be able to have a direct effect / influence within game.

Yes somebody who was afk has never killed anybody, the issue is that you never know if that person is afk or not.

I do not agree cloaks need fuel or a timer as this has for too much potential to hurt other area's of the game.

I would much prefer to introduce a new class of ship, say a destroyer and new types of probes to help scan down cloaked ships.

The way it would work would be that the scan time would be a lot longer then normal probes and only the new ship type can equip the probes.

If the person is not afk and is moving around there is no problem as it would be impossible to scan them due to the scan time.

However if the person goes afk they run the risk of being detected.

I do not see anything wrong with this.


That'd still utterly destroy wormhole space, as the presence of sigs (even if it took a long time to scan) would tell you if/how many cloaked ships are in your system.

You seem to be arguing against not knowing whether someone is afk or not (rather than cloaked ships being "invincible" like some others make a point of), but I still disagree with the existence of any issue. You don't know if that player is active and you SHOULDN'T know if they're active, imo. You shouldn't be able to just know that kind of thing. If a player wants to appear afk to lull someone into a false sense of security they should be able to. Your destroyer idea would prevent that kind of metagaming, shrinking the sandbox purely for the benefit of cowardly null ratters/miners who want perfect safety in 0.0 of all places.
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#90 - 2012-10-22 13:45:59 UTC
Azrael Dinn wrote:
TheGunslinger42 wrote:

........


Like I said that if you do not have any solutions for this then do not post. You realy need to be realy dense to not understand that. ^^

I'm saying it's broken and I want to hear solutions for it not crying that it's not broken. If the fuel idea is bad then present a better one.


The reason I don't have any solutions is because there isn't a problem. Regarding point 4 in the earlier post, you went on to explain that you can (and I assume do?) just move system to do your business, leaving the afk in an empty system - which you claimed was a problem. I explicitly asked how that's a problem, because it doesn't make a lick of sense. A single player, entirely by himself in a system, is not at his keyboard. How is that a problem? You're demanding solutions and trying to dismiss me because I didn't provide any, but you can't even say what the problem is. How can you expect solutions if you can't define the issue?

PS "really". Two L's.
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#91 - 2012-10-23 06:40:34 UTC
Azrael Dinn wrote:

I'm saying it's broken and I want to hear solutions for it not crying that it's not broken. If the fuel idea is bad then present a better one.

You saying its broken is simply an opinion. You have the right to that opinion, and you used it to post a thread. What you do not have is the right to deny somebody else the ability to post thier opinion.

You made a thread on a public forum with your opinion, you're now finding other people who's opinion differs from yours.


They are telling you there is no problem and thus no sollution required, welcome to whats called "interacting with people", you seem rusty, if I were you I'd work on it.

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#92 - 2012-10-23 12:56:39 UTC  |  Edited by: TheGunslinger42
Remove cloakies from local. Everybody wins.
Devon Krah'tor
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#93 - 2012-10-23 22:50:58 UTC
in game mechanic that has an appreciable effect (phsych warfare) has exactly zero direct counters, unless you go with: have a large fleet on standby 23/7 in every system with an AFK cloaker.

That seems to define a broken mechanic.

AFK miner? gank

AFK hauler? gank


Not easy, yes, but Possible.

find a cloaked ship in a solar system by moving with 2000 meters of him? possible? yes... likely? uhmm ... nope.

CCP please create another T2 Destroyer with a anti cloak role.
Cloak disruptor Probe: X% chance to disrupt all cloaks in Y(Distance) (X based on Y)

Cloaking Modules can be re-engaged normally after (very short) cooldown timer (give active probers a chance to hunt for ship before it cloaks again.

Problems solved :)

And yes, removing cloaks from Local is also a good idea.
Greater.Insight.Skill.Knowledge
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#94 - 2012-10-24 07:58:46 UTC
Devon Krah'tor wrote:
in game mechanic that has an appreciable effect (phsych warfare) has exactly zero direct counters, unless you go with: have a large fleet on standby 23/7 in every system with an AFK cloaker.

That seems to define a broken mechanic.

AFK miner? gank

AFK hauler? gank


Not easy, yes, but Possible.

find a cloaked ship in a solar system by moving with 2000 meters of him? possible? yes... likely? uhmm ... nope.

CCP please create another T2 Destroyer with a anti cloak role.
Cloak disruptor Probe: X% chance to disrupt all cloaks in Y(Distance) (X based on Y)

Cloaking Modules can be re-engaged normally after (very short) cooldown timer (give active probers a chance to hunt for ship before it cloaks again.

Problems solved :)

And yes, removing cloaks from Local is also a good idea.


If the only effect afk cloaks have is psychological warfare then the counter is don't fall for it. There absolutely does not need to be a "counter" to AFK players. I'm sick of hearing this dumb argument from cowardly nullbears.

And, again, anti-cloaking ships or probes would utterly destroy several areas of the game. Stop bloody suggesting it.
Jint Hikaru
OffWorld Exploration Inc
#95 - 2012-10-24 08:00:53 UTC
Devon Krah'tor wrote:

CCP please create another T2 Destroyer with a anti cloak role.
Cloak disruptor Probe: X% chance to disrupt all cloaks in Y(Distance) (X based on Y)

Cloaking Modules can be re-engaged normally after (very short) cooldown timer (give active probers a chance to hunt for ship before it cloaks again.

Problems solved :)

And yes, removing cloaks from Local is also a good idea.


This kind of gives active cloakers a huge shafting.....
(depending on how far you are talking about for 'Y'

Plus it could really ruin Wormholes.... ping your dissruptor and click D-Scan. any hidden hostiles in your WH will be listed.

Jint Hikaru - Miner / Salvager / Explorer / SpaceBum In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
TheBlueMonkey
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#96 - 2012-10-24 09:27:10 UTC
Azrael Dinn wrote:
Topic says it all.

Why:

1. You are not playing the game but yet you still are

2. Your getting an indirect benefits in many ways and your still not playing the game

I don't realy care how this is dealt with. My solution would be a heavy water fuel bay to the claoks but thats my idea.


Now lets hear the whines next.


Also remove the ability to list things on the market or remove the items you've listed when you log off.

Also, skill training should only train while you're logged on.

Also, production runs should only run while you're logged on

Also, research should only run while you're logged on.

Also, sov should only be held while at least 1 member of your alliance is logged on

etc etc etc etc etc

You're playing the wrong game if you think that the person playing AFK is the reason you keep failing.
Devon Krah'tor
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#97 - 2012-10-24 12:03:30 UTC
Jint Hikaru wrote:
Devon Krah'tor wrote:

CCP please create another T2 Destroyer with a anti cloak role.
Cloak disruptor Probe: X% chance to disrupt all cloaks in Y(Distance) (X based on Y)

Cloaking Modules can be re-engaged normally after (very short) cooldown timer (give active probers a chance to hunt for ship before it cloaks again.

Problems solved :)

And yes, removing cloaks from Local is also a good idea.


This kind of gives active cloakers a huge shafting.....
(depending on how far you are talking about for 'Y'

Plus it could really ruin Wormholes.... ping your dissruptor and click D-Scan. any hidden hostiles in your WH will be listed.



Hence why Disruptor has X% chance based off Y(range) the specifics would be up to CCP to sort out, however the range wouldn't touch the entire solar system, something like a 1-4 AU bubble. The presence of this unique ship on the active cloakers DScan would alert him to the danger so he could himself move out of range.

I'm not suggesting an IWIN ship vs cloakers, I'm suggesting something with a chance to detect them.
btw this T2 Destroyer would also be gimped somewhat by the Cloak Disruptor fit (like the cov-ops/t3 ships are)
Greater.Insight.Skill.Knowledge
Devon Krah'tor
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#98 - 2012-10-24 12:11:05 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Devon Krah'tor wrote:
in game mechanic that has an appreciable effect (phsych warfare) has exactly zero direct counters, unless you go with: have a large fleet on standby 23/7 in every system with an AFK cloaker.

That seems to define a broken mechanic.

AFK miner? gank

AFK hauler? gank


Not easy, yes, but Possible.

find a cloaked ship in a solar system by moving with 2000 meters of him? possible? yes... likely? uhmm ... nope.

CCP please create another T2 Destroyer with a anti cloak role.
Cloak disruptor Probe: X% chance to disrupt all cloaks in Y(Distance) (X based on Y)

Cloaking Modules can be re-engaged normally after (very short) cooldown timer (give active probers a chance to hunt for ship before it cloaks again.

Problems solved :)

And yes, removing cloaks from Local is also a good idea.


If the only effect afk cloaks have is psychological warfare then the counter is don't fall for it. There absolutely does not need to be a "counter" to AFK players. I'm sick of hearing this dumb argument from cowardly nullbears.

And, again, anti-cloaking ships or probes would utterly destroy several areas of the game. Stop bloody suggesting it.


You have a very binary thought process. I am suggesting a ship that could engage in a hunt for a cloaked ship, not push a button and instantly reveal all cloakers in the system.

I'm not a 'cowardly nullbear' I'm a player of this game and I think being able to perform a task in the game of eve without an appreciable chance of being countered by another player to be a broker mechanic.

I assume you either profit from this mechanic personally, are unable to coherently think through the possibility of creating a ship that could actively search for an active cloaker (who could spot him on DSCAN and actively evade)

It makes perfect sense that covert ops would have counter cover ops working against them. Stop defending a broken bloody game mechanic.
Greater.Insight.Skill.Knowledge
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#99 - 2012-10-24 14:45:24 UTC  |  Edited by: TheGunslinger42
Devon Krah'tor wrote:
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Devon Krah'tor wrote:
in game mechanic that has an appreciable effect (phsych warfare) has exactly zero direct counters, unless you go with: have a large fleet on standby 23/7 in every system with an AFK cloaker.

That seems to define a broken mechanic.

AFK miner? gank

AFK hauler? gank


Not easy, yes, but Possible.

find a cloaked ship in a solar system by moving with 2000 meters of him? possible? yes... likely? uhmm ... nope.

CCP please create another T2 Destroyer with a anti cloak role.
Cloak disruptor Probe: X% chance to disrupt all cloaks in Y(Distance) (X based on Y)

Cloaking Modules can be re-engaged normally after (very short) cooldown timer (give active probers a chance to hunt for ship before it cloaks again.

Problems solved :)

And yes, removing cloaks from Local is also a good idea.


If the only effect afk cloaks have is psychological warfare then the counter is don't fall for it. There absolutely does not need to be a "counter" to AFK players. I'm sick of hearing this dumb argument from cowardly nullbears.

And, again, anti-cloaking ships or probes would utterly destroy several areas of the game. Stop bloody suggesting it.


You have a very binary thought process. I am suggesting a ship that could engage in a hunt for a cloaked ship, not push a button and instantly reveal all cloakers in the system.

I'm not a 'cowardly nullbear' I'm a player of this game and I think being able to perform a task in the game of eve without an appreciable chance of being countered by another player to be a broker mechanic.

I assume you either profit from this mechanic personally, are unable to coherently think through the possibility of creating a ship that could actively search for an active cloaker (who could spot him on DSCAN and actively evade)

It makes perfect sense that covert ops would have counter cover ops working against them. Stop defending a broken bloody game mechanic.


I have a very binary thought process regarding this issue because it is a very binary issue. Introducing a ship or probe or some other mechanic to detect cloaked ships utterly destroys wormhole space. Even if you make it a convoluted or timeconsuming process, or even if you give it some %chance to not find anything on a given scan, it still wrecks wormhole mechanics. A deliberate design of wormhole mechanics was the inability to detect cloaked players at all. Introducing a mechanic to detect them, regardless of what limits you put on it, undermines that.

Additionally, it doesn't solve any "problem" because there is no "problem". You're suggesting things that have nothing but negatives, all because your psyche is so frail and battered that a single other player (in a MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER game at that) who isn't even there causes you to freak out and stop what you're doing/quit.

It's ridiculous. HTFU or go back to hisec.

Edit: As for "counters"... AFK players do not need a counter. I do not see you suggesting things that would allow me to kill you when you're AFK in your pos or outpost, so it's a bit hypocritical to be demanding mechanics to kill other AFK players because the mere sight of them causes you to inconvenience yourself.

On top of that, cloaks are already balanced. There are plenty of limitations put on ships capable of cloaking, so by themselves they're not much of a threat even if they're active.
Devon Krah'tor
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#100 - 2012-10-24 15:02:10 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Devon Krah'tor wrote:
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Devon Krah'tor wrote:
in game mechanic that has an appreciable effect (phsych warfare) has exactly zero direct counters, unless you go with: have a large fleet on standby 23/7 in every system with an AFK cloaker.

That seems to define a broken mechanic.

AFK miner? gank

AFK hauler? gank


Not easy, yes, but Possible.

find a cloaked ship in a solar system by moving with 2000 meters of him? possible? yes... likely? uhmm ... nope.

CCP please create another T2 Destroyer with a anti cloak role.
Cloak disruptor Probe: X% chance to disrupt all cloaks in Y(Distance) (X based on Y)

Cloaking Modules can be re-engaged normally after (very short) cooldown timer (give active probers a chance to hunt for ship before it cloaks again.

Problems solved :)

And yes, removing cloaks from Local is also a good idea.


If the only effect afk cloaks have is psychological warfare then the counter is don't fall for it. There absolutely does not need to be a "counter" to AFK players. I'm sick of hearing this dumb argument from cowardly nullbears.

And, again, anti-cloaking ships or probes would utterly destroy several areas of the game. Stop bloody suggesting it.


You have a very binary thought process. I am suggesting a ship that could engage in a hunt for a cloaked ship, not push a button and instantly reveal all cloakers in the system.

I'm not a 'cowardly nullbear' I'm a player of this game and I think being able to perform a task in the game of eve without an appreciable chance of being countered by another player to be a broker mechanic.

I assume you either profit from this mechanic personally, are unable to coherently think through the possibility of creating a ship that could actively search for an active cloaker (who could spot him on DSCAN and actively evade)

It makes perfect sense that covert ops would have counter cover ops working against them. Stop defending a broken bloody game mechanic.


I have a very binary thought process regarding this issue because it is a very binary issue. Introducing a ship or probe or some other mechanic to detect cloaked ships utterly destroys wormhole space. Even if you make it a convoluted or timeconsuming process, or even if you give it some %chance to not find anything on a given scan, it still wrecks wormhole mechanics. A deliberate design of wormhole mechanics was the inability to detect cloaked players at all. Introducing a mechanic to detect them, regardless of what limits you put on it, undermines that.

Additionally, it doesn't solve any "problem" because there is no "problem". You're suggesting things that have nothing but negatives, all because your psyche is so frail and battered that a single other player (in a MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER game at that) who isn't even there causes you to freak out and stop what you're doing/quit.

It's ridiculous. HTFU or go back to hisec.

Edit: As for "counters"... AFK players do not need a counter. I do not see you suggesting things that would allow me to kill you when you're AFK in your pos or outpost, so it's a bit hypocritical to be demanding mechanics to kill other AFK players because the mere sight of them causes you to inconvenience yourself.

On top of that, cloaks are already balanced. There are plenty of limitations put on ships capable of cloaking, so by themselves they're not much of a threat even if they're active.


First explain how introducing a new ship with a specialized module that has the ability to, with skill, have a chance to temporarily disable all cloaks will 'destroy' WH space.

Considering its a specialized ship, would its presence not alert the cov-op pilot to the potential danger? Perhaps use a fuel cost or charges, perhaps a huge cool down or massive cap usage to 'fire' the disruptor so as to not make it spammable.

AFK in POS - Can Seige said POS, with a greater chance of success than moving within 2000m of the cloaker in system.
AFK in Station - granted, you cannot Pod individual, however an alliance can take over the station and remove his ability to redock with a greter chance of success than moving within 2000m of the cloaker in system.

LOL frail and battered psyche, that's cute. Anyway as I previously stated I play this game and I seek to improve it.
Likewise I haven't demanded anything, only suggested something that in fact existed and continues to exist in reality, as allowing an enemies submarine free reign in your waters without any ability to hunt for it is very dangerous (see WWII, battle for the atlantic)

Perhaps the crux of this (obviously highly emotionally charged) discussion is the need to differentiate between types of cloak. One for the Spy, and one for the Ambusher?

The spy could continue to gather information without risk, only his time and effort.

The ambusher could be revealed by the Disruptor, but has a ship-type that is more capable in combat than the spy.
Greater.Insight.Skill.Knowledge